Search for a command to run...
To date, Lithuanian historians have mostly focused on the activities of single segments of Russian minority or Russian public figures. Yet, analyzing one segment fails to reveal the overall Russian social adaptation in the interwar Lithuania. Furthermore, the interaction between different segments of Russian minority should be included in analysis. Did this interaction contribute to higher consolidation of Russians? Or perhaps, social differences posed significant obstacles to aspirations of increased unity? This article attempts to avoid ethnocentric interpretations of Russian social situation in Lithuania by taking into account not only the social attitudes of ethnic majority, but also of Russian minority. Such analysis of events and processes enables a better understanding of how visions of state’s social development are generated by revealing that ethnic minorities, as well as the ethnic majority, have particular aspirations and draw on particular measures to achieve them. The novelty of this article is that Russians are not treated as a homogenous community. Differences in legal and social status, education, political views, and motivation for social adaptation are taken into account. One of the important motives of the article is to demonstrate that images of ethnic minorities in the contemporary Lithuanian society are not always factual. Historical experiences of ethnic majority and ethnic minorities are often used to construct various ideological stereotypes. Critical rethinking of such stereotypes has taken precedence. In order to achieve this goal, this article discusses demographic issues, education in Russian language, Russian labour and economic activities, activities of Russian public organizations, and issues of Russian social adaptation.Russians consisted of three migration flows that caused various social and cultural differences among them. There were descendents of Old Believers, who had lived in the territory of Lithuania since the end of 17th Century. Migration of Russians to Lithuania continued during the Russian Empire rule in 19-20th Century. A part of them had never returned to Russia, preferring to stay with their descendents in Lithuania. Lithuania also hosted refugees, who emigrated from Russia after the October Revolution in 1917. In total, more than 50 thousand Russians lived in Lithuania according 1923 census data. By religion, they consisted of Old Believers and Orthodox. Mutual relations of these religious communities were complicated due to historical reasons until 1940 and later. The Russian ethnic group could be described as one of poorly educated farmers and of exceptionally gifted intelligentsia that had prestigious jobs in the military, in the State Theatre, or at Vytautas Magnus University. Situation of Russians in the labour market was exceptional, since it illustrated how an ethnic minority group that was once the titular ethnic group adapted to radical political changes. The integration of Russians into the Lithuanian labour market was dependent on their level of education and ability to apply their skills. Individuals who were able to change their qualification had greater chances in the labour market. Some Russians who lacked professional skills or were not able to compete with members of other ethnic groups were disappointed about the prospects of improving their own social status and considered the possibility of emigration to other countries. Possibilities for the integration of ethnic minorities into the Lithuanian labour market to a large extent depended on the interests of the ethnic majority. The ability to understand and adapt to the requirements of the ethnic majority, as well as knowledge of the Lithuanian language, eased the integration of ethnic minorities into the labour market. The development of the network of Russian public organisations reflects the collective action of this ethnic group. The results of these activities can be evaluated in two ways. First, they demonstrate that Russians successfully cooperated for achievement of common goals. On the other hand, the potential of this network and of interaction with other ethnic groups remained largely unrealised. The establishment of cultural, educational, charitable, religious or economic organisations helped cater to narrow ethnocultural needs and solved some social problems.It has been concluded that Russian social adaptation cannot be simply evaluated as successful or failed integration. The history of the Russians in interwar Lithuania illustrates the fact that social adaptation is a dynamic process, and its outcomes tend to fluctuate. Political, economic, social, and cultural changes in the state of Lithuania influenced the relationship between the ethnic majority and ethnic minorities. The strengthening of the Lithuanian ethnic group led to changes in the possibilities of ethnic minorities to express their identity and to achieve desired legal and social status. Developments in these three dimensions (legal status, social status, and ethnic identity) to a large extent determined the type of social adaptation of the community: integration, assimilation, marginalisation or separatism. It must be noted, however, that individual social adaptation depended on personal priorities, religion, social and legal status, etc. Current evaluations of historical Russian social adaptation do not take into account individual variability and therefore are not able to provide a complete picture of the process. The social adaptation of Russians in Lithuania was a multifaceted process. Successful adaptation to a large extent depended on the individual efforts of Russians and interpretation of those efforts by Lithuanian society. Integration in society is hardly possible without positive identification. The image of Russians in Lithuanian society was largely shaped by the activities of professionals from the Russian imperial period (state officials, colonists, priests, etc.). An invisible obstacle to integration was the negative identification of Russians with conquerors and colonists, despite their efforts to demonstrate loyalty to the state of Lithuania. The permanent need to deny association with the former regime and to demonstrate loyalty to the state was a sign of the problematic aspect of Russian integration in Lithuanian society. Russians rarely voiced discontent with their civic status, but this should not lead to the conclusion that Russian integration in Lithuanian society was successful. As this article demonstrates, social adaptation is a complex and dynamic process that rarely brings unequivocal results.